Further Reading

Every element of Aaron Swartz’s brief, remarkable life exemplifies the stuff we cover all the time on Ars. His tech-filled upbringing, his teenage rise to geek royalty, his hand in reddit’s genesis, and his online political activism made him a worthy subject of Ars conversation well before he became a household name.

Sadly, Swartz’s story didn’t reach critical mass until he took his own life nearly two years after being indicted by a federal court on twelve felony charges. The case hinged on allegations that he had downloaded 4.8 million documents from JSTOR, an online academic research archive, which he accessed from within MIT’s campus without permission.

In the weeks after his suicide, the Internet saw both a massive outpouring of grief and a comprehensive examination of what made his case so outrageous. The latter makes the new feature-length documentary about his life, The Internet’s Own Boy, less than indispensable in telling Swartz’s story, but considering the fact that he spent his final years trying to make information free and open, that’s fitting.

Where the public record falters—and where this film picks up the slack—is in making sense of Swartz’s personality. Director Brian Knappenberger can’t completely overcome the bias inherent in honoring Swartz’s memory, but he still mostly finds the right balance when recounting the coder’s life history and the rapidly changing world of technology around him. The result connects the dots between a young genius and a burdened overachiever facing decades in prison and a lifelong mark of “felon.”

The story of an “alpha nerd”

Further Reading

After briefly summarizing Swartz’s federal court case and subsequent death, The Internet’s Own Boy quickly changes tone by presenting a squeaky-voiced toddler in a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles shirt reading books and playing with his two younger brothers. Between home video clips, family members tell stories of his early brilliance—reading grown-up sentences by the time he was three years old, using computers before that, creating a poor man’s version of Wikipedia in 2000 when he was only 12.

Swartz once told his younger siblings, “There was always something programming could solve,” and the documentary latches onto that as a thesis statement. He was a vocal member of the early RSS development community as only a teenager, and he helped build the guts of Creative Commons before attending Stanford, the school he dropped out of so he could focus on giant Internet projects like reddit and Demand Progress. He was no minor contributor to such efforts, and he racked up a great many fans before turning 18; such luminaries, who appear in the film to speak on Swartz's behalf, include Lawrence Lessig, Cory Doctorow, World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, and others.

Viewers who aren’t well versed in acronyms like RSS, PACER, and JSTOR can look forward to clear, brief summaries of the work that Swartz obsessed over, all presented with snappy isometric diagrams. The technical stuff doesn’t get in the way of understanding Swartz’s total personality, but Knappenberger occasionally overdoes the explanations, as if to avoid having to reveal the coder’s most disagreeable traits.

Cory Doctorow calls him “combative but smart,” and Swartz is described in other scenes as a picky eater, an “alpha nerd,” and “a strong personality that ruffled feathers at times.” Enough backhanded compliments accumulate over the film’s runtime that viewers may wonder how much the film softened its treatment of Swartz, but it also presents Swartz’s various higher-level and mission statements about doing good, freeing information, and “making the world a better place.”

These moments punctuate the stories of his later-life initiatives, which accelerated after he left reddit, a company he co-founded. After seeing the federal court database PACER lock citizens out of public information via paywall, Swartz coordinated the legal, free accumulation of its database. On the heels of that success, he set his sights on JSTOR, the giant scientific journal database that houses a mix of publicly and privately funded research behind its own semi-opaque paywall.

Swartz exploited that weird not-quite-paywall by logging into JSTOR from MIT’s libraries under fake accounts to download its giant database of journals and papers. When his heavy activity was noticed and subsequently blocked, Swartz allegedly responded by waltzing into MIT’s basement and attaching a computer directly to the university’s network to resume his downloads.

The Internet’s Own Boy focuses heavily on the MIT story that led to his arrest and years of back-and-forth with the federal government, and savvier documentary viewers won’t learn too much new information. Other than a few stark scenes, particularly the security camera footage of Swartz in MIT’s basement, the film recounts details that had already been laid bare, including federal prosecutors’ disproportionate aggression and JSTOR withdrawing its initial request for prosecution.

Fighting bias with bias?

Further Reading

Remembering the talented activist who lived in our Internet neighborhood.

Where the film could have shone is in telling the story from all sides, but its cast of confidants and colleagues rarely sways to any side other than Swartz’s. In particular, the film's talking heads almost unanimously agree that the current copyright system is “antiquated,” and they make few comments about content protection, let alone new ways for creatives and coders to make money on a share-crazy Internet. (The closest the film comes is in explaining Swartz’s work on Creative Commons, which the film later describes as an imperfect system.)

That’s a hard complaint to swallow, since much of Swartz’s downfall comes from his singular view about copyright, and the trouble he eventually faced is met in the film with mostly blind rage and utter disagreement. At no point are his criminal actions at MIT described as “civil disobedience,” for example; instead, Swartz’s actions are compared to the likes of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who broke and bent laws in their early careers.

Only incredibly late in the film do we get any sense of the other side of the argument. “What drove the prosecution was the sense that Swartz was dedicated not only to breaking the law but nullifying it,” former federal prosecutor and George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr says. “Giving access to the data in a way where the toothpaste couldn’t be put back into the tube. Then Swartz’s side would win.”

The film could have been that much more powerful if it had explored how Swartz grew up too fast to appreciate the “at any cost” part of his willful lawbreaking, of uncapping that toothpaste tube. To Knappenberger’s credit, the film takes an opportunity to focus its anger on the wider-spread problems of American over-prosecuting: “Anything we’re afraid of, like the future of the Internet and access, and anything we’re angry about, creates a criminal justice intervention,” said Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Rights Initiative, “but usually, the people targeted and victimized by incarceration responses are poor and minority.”

Perhaps the filmmakers felt that Swartz’s case was lopsided enough against his favor; why not a film that tells the story from the other extreme? Indeed, its most powerful moments don’t suffer a bit in spite of bias, particularly a scene in which Swartz’s ex-girlfriend (and Wired freelance contributor) Quinn Norton admitted to sharing potentially damaging information with federal prosecutors.

“In that moment, I regret that I said what I did,” Norton said. “But my much larger regret is that we have settled for this—that we are okay with a justice system that tries to game people into little traps so that we can ruin their lives.”

The film closes by embracing the same attitude Swartz had in public life in his final days: making calls for action and championing grassroots efforts to promote the freedom of information (along with any legislators united in those efforts). Those stories of active, engaged masses versus a confused old guard, told clearly and quickly with a lot of context and very little obnoxious hand-holding, rise above the film’s missteps, ultimately making this one of the best tech-obsessed documentaries in recent memory. Even better, the film closes with a slew of very interesting Swartz interviews about American Internet policy, from the SOPA debate and beyond, and their takeaways are still relevant today.

He may have been an obnoxious collaborator and a picky eater, but between his efforts and films like this, Swartz will not soon be forgotten.

190 Reader Comments

His story is just another example of the lawlessness of the internet and the flawed notion of the idea that you can do whatever you want because internet. People seem to want to ignore the idea that what happens on the internet can have consequences in the real world until that reality slaps them in the face.

This is a pretty clear cut case of committing a crime and not wanting to face the consequences. This guy waltzed in, connected directly into a network switch in a TC closet (which means he knew what he was doing was wrong, and he was trying to conceal it). He got caught, and Uncle Sam leaned on him some.

He could have plead out, said "hey, the college is OK with it, I'll tell you everything you want to know", and he probably would have walked away with probation.

It looks he had other outstanding mental issues that prevented him from seeing that far down the road, and when the DOJ opened with their usual "we're going for a life sentence for spitting on the sidewalk" crap, he honestly thought his life was over and did himself in.

While the story is sad, it isn't uncommon, and I can't see why folks are trying to make a hacker that couldn't hack life a national hero.

For people who are interested in the balanced view, Prof. Kerr had written more very insightful and nuanced analysis on the issues at Volokh Conspiracy, much better than this garbage so-called "documentary."

So which prosecutor was at fault when he tried to kill himself years before this incident?

Or, which family members are at fault for not forcing him to seek medical attention for his prolonged, and well know, bout with depression?

Did anyone of his friends and associates bother to suggest that someone who is suicidal, suffers from depression that a career of activism might not be such a wise choice.

Or would his friends and family prefer to continue the false claims of the number of years he was threatened with as being his only way out; when prosecution offered him a sentence that was quite lenient?

I like all the swaggering get-tough, law and order types that come out of the woodwork every time Aaron Swartz is the topic. Not willing to give an inch or even attempt to entertain the slightest notion of decency, fairness and justice when it comes to this situation. As if anyone else has not broken a law or three in their lives.

I like all the swaggering get-tough, law and order types that come out of the woodwork every time Aaron Swartz is the topic. Not willing to give an inch or even attempt to entertain the slightest notion of decency, fairness and justice when it comes to this situation. As if anyone else has not broken a law or three in their lives.

I agree, although I suspect you'll be roasting over open flames in the later comments. The other thing the law-and-order types fail to consider is motivation. Releasing the results of scientific works, many of which were funded with public money, is a totally different thing from what most of us generally consider stealing. It's not like he downloaded a bunch of Hollywood movies and put them out there for free - even JStor themselves didn't press charges.

I could (barely) justify his prosecution if JStor or MIT, or even the State of Mass., had been pushing for it. None of them had sought to have him prosecuted, and the state had dropped their case. IMO the only justification for the federal prosecution was the ego and career goals of those in the federal prosecutor's office. The two of them make me hope there's a hell.

I like all the swaggering get-tough, law and order types that come out of the woodwork every time Aaron Swartz is the topic.

You say that as if you know for certain that most people think he was horribly victimized. Which may possibly be true if you only sample Ars readers, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the general public shares your opinion.

I like all the swaggering get-tough, law and order types that come out of the woodwork every time Aaron Swartz is the topic. Not willing to give an inch or even attempt to entertain the slightest notion of decency, fairness and justice when it comes to this situation. As if anyone else has not broken a law or three in their lives.

not willing to give an inch? He killed himself because of an underlying mental health condition having little to nothing to do with his "persecution". His committing suicide was likely to have been an inevitability, he already went down that path once before.

If I keep running in front of a truck until one of them finally hits and kills me, are you really going to blame the driver?

If you are in New York state, and you know your loved one is suicidal, it's more productive to take advantage of Kendra's Law.

You want to be careful with that. Few people take kindly to being forced into a mental institution against their will even if you feel it's "for their own good." Even though Kendra's law only allows 72 hours detention (and does not allow for forced medication) there's a chance that the patient will leave the institution even MORE pissed off and resistant to the idea of getting help...

The comments are doing a pretty good job so far so i won't comment on the article subject, but I object to a piece of editing:

The headline says "Documentary overcomes bias" : I read this article because of that line: I would love to see a truly unbiased documentary on the subject. But the article clearly says "Where the film could have shone is in telling the story from all sides, but its cast of confidants and colleagues rarely sways to any side other than Swartz’s."

So it sounds like the documentary not only did NOT overcome bias, it presented a singular point of view, loaded with bias.

The comments are doing a pretty good job so far so i won't comment on the article subject, but I object to a piece of editing:

The headline says "Documentary overcomes bias" : I read this article because of that line: I would love to see a truly unbiased documentary on the subject. But the article clearly says "Where the film could have shone is in telling the story from all sides, but its cast of confidants and colleagues rarely sways to any side other than Swartz’s."

So it sounds like the documentary not only did NOT overcome bias, it presented a singular point of view, loaded with bias.

Disappointing.

And you act surprised? Given the overwhelming bias of ars in favor of Swartz, I would've been shocked if the article did anything but wholeheartedly endorse a biased documentary.

This is a pretty clear cut case of committing a crime and not wanting to face the consequences. This guy waltzed in, connected directly into a network switch in a TC closet (which means he knew what he was doing was wrong, and he was trying to conceal it). He got caught, and Uncle Sam leaned on him some.

He could have plead out, said "hey, the college is OK with it, I'll tell you everything you want to know", and he probably would have walked away with probation.

It looks he had other outstanding mental issues that prevented him from seeing that far down the road, and when the DOJ opened with their usual "we're going for a life sentence for spitting on the sidewalk" crap, he honestly thought his life was over and did himself in.

While the story is sad, it isn't uncommon, and I can't see why folks are trying to make a hacker that couldn't hack life a national hero.

What he did was illegal, but it wasn't wrong. Publicly funded research should always be available to the people who paid for it.

If you are in New York state, and you know your loved one is suicidal, it's more productive to take advantage of Kendra's Law.

You want to be careful with that. Few people take kindly to being forced into a mental institution against their will even if you feel it's "for their own good." Even though Kendra's law only allows 72 hours detention (and does not allow for forced medication) there's a chance that the patient will leave the institution even MORE pissed off and resistant to the idea of getting help...

I certainly think California's Laura's Law is an improvement over Kendra's Law on the medication front. I think the idea for the 72 hours is so that further diagnosis can be run to see if a petition for extend the commitment is necessary.

Also, since Swartz was released pending trail, the judge in that case has pretty wide discretion to revoke his bail/put him on suicide watch if his family filed affidavits to that effects.

Although I agree that the prosecution in this case was, frankly, insane and ridiculous... at the same time, I disagree with Aaron's positions and the fact that he wouldn't even dare think about compromise.

I've written articles for publication, some of which I was paid for. I spend a considerable amount of money on my education, and training, for the sole purpose of writing and getting paid to be a researcher. If everything is free, how do I pay my bills?

How does JSTOR pay for their servers so I can get access to things when I'm writing a literature review? How do they pay their accountants? Secretaries?

I own a small publishing company as a hobby. Most of the money made goes to the authors and editors. I keep maybe 20% of what is earned. Yet people still pirate our books. We keep our ebook prices very low - we have prices that are 1.99, 2.99, and some at 5.99 (for VERY large books - and we've lowered those, or offered frequent discounts). Apparently our books should be "free" because hey - why should our authors get paid for their time?

The minute someone can explain to me, rationally, how I should pay my bills (or write me a check to pay off my student loans) I'll be happy to support Aaron's position. Until then, I agree the prosecuting attorney should be punished - but Aaron deserved punishment as well.

He essentially did nothing wrong, why would any sane person say anything otherwise.

"He essentially did nothing wrong". Well that obviously explains why he hid his face with his bike helmet, why time and time again he circumvented JSTOR efforts to block his downloading, why he secreted a PC into an MIT equipment room, why he didn't use his Harvard account for his downloading activities, and ran from MIT campus police, all because he wasn't doing anything wrong.

He essentially did nothing wrong, why would any sane person say anything otherwise.

"He essentially did nothing wrong". Well that obviously explains why he hid his face with his bike helmet, why time and time again he circumvented JSTOR efforts to block his downloading, why he secreted a PC into an MIT equipment room, why he didn't use his Harvard account for his downloading activities, and ran from MIT campus police, all because he wasn't doing anything wrong.

When these petitions were launched, the threshold for getting a White House response was 25,000 signatures. The White House then boosted the requirement (non-retroactively) to 50,000 and then to 100,000 while studiously ignoring these Aaron Swartz petitions. Please consider adding your signature to these petitions in memory of Aaron Swartz, and visit http://DemandProgress.org to join the million-plus people who support the free Internet that Aaron Swartz gave his life trying to create.

He essentially did nothing wrong, why would any sane person say anything otherwise.

"He essentially did nothing wrong". Well that obviously explains why he hid his face with his bike helmet, why time and time again he circumvented JSTOR efforts to block his downloading, why he secreted a PC into an MIT equipment room, why he didn't use his Harvard account for his downloading activities, and ran from MIT campus police, all because he wasn't doing anything wrong.

Legal and moral are hardly the same thing.

Then maybe he should have stuck around and challenged it in court instead of taking the easy way out.

This is a pretty clear cut case of committing a crime and not wanting to face the consequences. This guy waltzed in, connected directly into a network switch in a TC closet (which means he knew what he was doing was wrong, and he was trying to conceal it). He got caught, and Uncle Sam leaned on him some.

He could have plead out, said "hey, the college is OK with it, I'll tell you everything you want to know", and he probably would have walked away with probation.

It looks he had other outstanding mental issues that prevented him from seeing that far down the road, and when the DOJ opened with their usual "we're going for a life sentence for spitting on the sidewalk" crap, he honestly thought his life was over and did himself in.

While the story is sad, it isn't uncommon, and I can't see why folks are trying to make a hacker that couldn't hack life a national hero.

What he did was illegal, but it wasn't wrong. Publicly funded research should always be available to the people who paid for it.

Then take your case to the agencies funding the research and get them to release it. Don't be a pirate-vigilante and take the law into your own hands. But if you do, have the courage of your convictions and deal with the consequences.

Although I agree that the prosecution in this case was, frankly, insane and ridiculous... at the same time, I disagree with Aaron's positions and the fact that he wouldn't even dare think about compromise.

I've written articles for publication, some of which I was paid for. I spend a considerable amount of money on my education, and training, for the sole purpose of writing and getting paid to be a researcher. If everything is free, how do I pay my bills?

How does JSTOR pay for their servers so I can get access to things when I'm writing a literature review? How do they pay their accountants? Secretaries?

I own a small publishing company as a hobby. Most of the money made goes to the authors and editors. I keep maybe 20% of what is earned. Yet people still pirate our books. We keep our ebook prices very low - we have prices that are 1.99, 2.99, and some at 5.99 (for VERY large books - and we've lowered those, or offered frequent discounts). Apparently our books should be "free" because hey - why should our authors get paid for their time?

The minute someone can explain to me, rationally, how I should pay my bills (or write me a check to pay off my student loans) I'll be happy to support Aaron's position. Until then, I agree the prosecuting attorney should be punished - but Aaron deserved punishment as well.

He essentially did nothing wrong, why would any sane person say anything otherwise.

"He essentially did nothing wrong". Well that obviously explains why he hid his face with his bike helmet, why time and time again he circumvented JSTOR efforts to block his downloading, why he secreted a PC into an MIT equipment room, why he didn't use his Harvard account for his downloading activities, and ran from MIT campus police, all because he wasn't doing anything wrong.

Legal and moral are hardly the same thing.

Then maybe he should have stuck around and challenged it in court instead of taking the easy way out.

The court systems is rigged, and if you believe otherwise, have I got a bridge to sell you. Manning proved exactly what happens to people who do the right thing and try to argue their point at trial.

He essentially did nothing wrong, why would any sane person say anything otherwise.

"He essentially did nothing wrong". Well that obviously explains why he hid his face with his bike helmet, why time and time again he circumvented JSTOR efforts to block his downloading, why he secreted a PC into an MIT equipment room, why he didn't use his Harvard account for his downloading activities, and ran from MIT campus police, all because he wasn't doing anything wrong.

I said 'essentially', I believe by definition, that means I am saying he was he was 'actually' doing something wrong.

He violated a business TOS/UELA type agreement.

So I think most reasonable people would agree he in the grand scheme of things... 'essentially did nothing wrong'.

He essentially did nothing wrong, why would any sane person say anything otherwise.

"He essentially did nothing wrong". Well that obviously explains why he hid his face with his bike helmet, why time and time again he circumvented JSTOR efforts to block his downloading, why he secreted a PC into an MIT equipment room, why he didn't use his Harvard account for his downloading activities, and ran from MIT campus police, all because he wasn't doing anything wrong.

Legal and moral are hardly the same thing.

Then maybe he should have stuck around and challenged it in court instead of taking the easy way out.

The court systems is rigged, and if you believe otherwise, have I got a bridge to sell you. Manning proved exactly what happens to people who do the right thing and try to argue their point at trial.

Manning did not fall under the court system, Manning signed over constitutional rights to the court system and agreed to be subject to military code of justice when he voluntarily signed up for the US armed forces

He essentially did nothing wrong, why would any sane person say anything otherwise.

"He essentially did nothing wrong". Well that obviously explains why he hid his face with his bike helmet, why time and time again he circumvented JSTOR efforts to block his downloading, why he secreted a PC into an MIT equipment room, why he didn't use his Harvard account for his downloading activities, and ran from MIT campus police, all because he wasn't doing anything wrong.

Legal and moral are hardly the same thing.

Then maybe he should have stuck around and challenged it in court instead of taking the easy way out.

The court systems is rigged, and if you believe otherwise, have I got a bridge to sell you. Manning proved exactly what happens to people who do the right thing and try to argue their point at trial.

Manning is innocent? Last time I checked dumping top secret documents into the open is not "innocent"; while he may have had a purpose for some of what he dumped he wasn't selective about it in any way shape or form.

Then we could get into a discussion on his mental stability. wait, no we can't; there's nothing stable about him.

The result connects the dots between a young genius and a burdened overachiever facing decades in prison and a lifelong mark of “felon.”

Stopped reading there.

Oh we do love a martyr. (Meaning people in general, not just the folks in this forum or any other particular group.)

He was facing months in prison (along with the lifelong mark of "felon"). We lost a young genius and visionary because of mental illness. If you want to avoid this situation in the future and possibly avoid losing the next Aaron, talk about improving mental health services.

Perpetuating the idea of Aaron as the boy killed by overzealous prosecution feels good and lets us feel righteous, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

Although I agree that the prosecution in this case was, frankly, insane and ridiculous... at the same time, I disagree with Aaron's positions and the fact that he wouldn't even dare think about compromise.

I've written articles for publication, some of which I was paid for. I spend a considerable amount of money on my education, and training, for the sole purpose of writing and getting paid to be a researcher. If everything is free, how do I pay my bills?

How does JSTOR pay for their servers so I can get access to things when I'm writing a literature review? How do they pay their accountants? Secretaries?

I own a small publishing company as a hobby. Most of the money made goes to the authors and editors. I keep maybe 20% of what is earned. Yet people still pirate our books. We keep our ebook prices very low - we have prices that are 1.99, 2.99, and some at 5.99 (for VERY large books - and we've lowered those, or offered frequent discounts). Apparently our books should be "free" because hey - why should our authors get paid for their time?

The minute someone can explain to me, rationally, how I should pay my bills (or write me a check to pay off my student loans) I'll be happy to support Aaron's position. Until then, I agree the prosecuting attorney should be punished - but Aaron deserved punishment as well.

But "information wants to be free" or something . . .

Absolutely. Who knew information was a sentient entity with desires and wishes of it's own?

The comments are doing a pretty good job so far so i won't comment on the article subject, but I object to a piece of editing:

The headline says "Documentary overcomes bias" : I read this article because of that line: I would love to see a truly unbiased documentary on the subject. But the article clearly says "Where the film could have shone is in telling the story from all sides, but its cast of confidants and colleagues rarely sways to any side other than Swartz’s."

So it sounds like the documentary not only did NOT overcome bias, it presented a singular point of view, loaded with bias.

Disappointing.

And you act surprised? Given the overwhelming bias of ars in favor of Swartz, I would've been shocked if the article did anything but wholeheartedly endorse a biased documentary.

Is it bias? All this time I've been thinking it was that Ars readers are better informed, smarter, and think more independently of others, including our government overlords.

He essentially did nothing wrong, why would any sane person say anything otherwise.

"He essentially did nothing wrong". Well that obviously explains why he hid his face with his bike helmet, why time and time again he circumvented JSTOR efforts to block his downloading, why he secreted a PC into an MIT equipment room, why he didn't use his Harvard account for his downloading activities, and ran from MIT campus police, all because he wasn't doing anything wrong.

I said 'essentially', I believe by definition, that means I am saying he was he was 'actually' doing something wrong.

He violated a business TOS/UELA type agreement.

So I think most reasonable people would agree he in the grand scheme of things... 'essentially did nothing wrong'.

In what grammar Universe does "essentially did nothing wrong" equal "actually did something wrong"? I don't see the definitional equivalence.

He either did or he didn't. I say he did, I think you are saying that, too, but you are equivocating so I'm not exactly sure what you are saying.

What he did was illegal, but it wasn't wrong. Publicly funded research should always be available to the people who paid for it.

What made it wrong was that he got the material through JSTOR. JSTOR are good guys. They take journals that are not available online, and license the rights from the publishers to scan the journals and put them online. JSTOR puts considerable time and expense into this.

Because of JSTOR, you can read many science journals while sitting at home in your underwear that you otherwise would have had to put on pants and drive to the library to read.

JSTOR is a non-profit, and doesn't charge more than is required by the content owners and to cover its expenses, and they provide reasonably priced site licenses that provide unlimited access at most universities. Many of these offer free public access.

If Swartz thought that a particular journal should be available free on the internet, he should have scanned that journal himself at the library and posted the scans, or, if the journal sold online access bought an online copy and uploaded that. That would be the moral way to do what he was trying to do, especially if he started with journals and articles that were not available through JSTOR.